Introduction
It must be one of the biggest clichés in the Wargaming world, but change occurs on a regular, sometimes constant basis through two particular mediums. The first, which of the two is the least frequent, is refining; the taking of something which exists and tweaking of it to suit whatever needs are required of it. The second, which is far and away the most frequent, is expansion; the adding of new material to an existing work. Both of these are things we all see in many Wargames, and it is most likely the two things we keep the most track of.
There are many reasons for this, but ultimately in the gaming world, not taking notice of such change tends to have negative consequences. It is also hard to miss when a rules system changes, or a new shiny faction comes out, or is reinvented. It affects the entire gaming community, especially if you play GW games.
The contrast between the two is worth noting, as they both have a massive impact on the games we play, and most games vary as to which of the two they do best, if either of them at all. Through the course of this particular post, I'd like to discuss some of what I feel are the successes and failures of games with regards to refining and expanding.
Expansion
It is probably wise to start with expansion, as of the two it is virtually a constant. The way most games are means that you are more likely to see something new than see something existing being fiddled with. Usually, as has been discussed before, new things are often introduced as a sweetener to justify change. GW are particularly infamous for this, relying on new gimmicks to justify a rehash of a old system.
Expansion is something we are used to seeing. Privateer Press even themed whole releases and new books around the concept, with names such as "Escalation" and "Superiority", and introducing "Epic" versions of their Warcaster characters. The reason is as blatant as the naming, most companies up the ante. A lot of Wargaming is built upon tension, and if you keep that aspect building, so too should interest.
Plus, we all get bored, and we want to see our factions improve, evolve and change. Expansion is a common factor, something a wargamer expects. If you are playing a game using miniatures, you expect to see more of them. In Historical wargaming, you can have massive wars to cover, so many different regiments, types of tanks, new innovations and warmachines etc.
Besides, it isn't just miniatures that are expanded upon, but so too are rulesets. New rules come out of playing, new expanded concepts, rules to cover new issues or developments, new scenarios and battle types, new ideas, campaign rules, new unit rules, and so much more.
There was a time when the best example of this was actually Games Workshop. All of their games, WHFB, 40k, LOTR, and all the specialist games would get new rules and expanded ideas that were frequently published in magazines. Some were submitted by fans, but others were developed. This occurred to such an extent that people started actively hating White Dwarf because it no longer featured new rules, or any article that was remotely doing anything other than excusing the White Dwarf from being a catalogue that you pay for.
GW had a golden age that they no longer explore. The trouble with expansion, of course, is that it leads to imbalance within rulesets, especially if you don't develop all factions equally. Privateer Press has for a time, managed to avoid this, but trying to expand on the number of factions may bring a detriment to this.
By far the worst example of excess that I can think of is Confrontation. That was a game that swelled to the very edges with a massive excess amount of rules, which it tried to manage in an incredibly complex fashion. There was no way you could remember the 7 or so pages of abilities within the book, let alone the myriad of incredibly complex turn aspects.
Refining
Mentioning confrontation leads me to refining. A Wargaming producer's constant struggle is that of managing everything into a cohesive and balanced system (apart from GW, who just want you to know what edition it is). What keeps people playing games is the challenge, and the social interaction. The best way to facilitate both is to make sure your system runs smoothly.
Refining is what makes the difference between a good game and a great game. Some games try to bypass this with gimmicks (40k, WHFB) or polish (Confrontation, 40k, WHFB) but the mark of a really good system is the ability to make things work within a well-defined system.
Privateer Press have even being struggling with this of late, but for me, Warmachine and Hordes represents a very good example of a refined system. PP knows what works, and what their game is. Anyone who plays it can be under no illusions of what the game is about, or how it is played. I learnt more or less the entirety of how to play Warmachine the first time I played it. I am still learning about Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 every single day that goes by.
The difference is the strength of the ruleset. Warmachine and Hordes has a very well-defined system. Other rules adhere to the existing rules. So whilst a rule or unit might be new to you, how it interacts with the system is something you are most likely familiar with. In contrast, with the likes of 40k, you don't know, because so many rules contradict, or outright re-write the core rules, so you are often faced with the question of what is intended, without being able to logically determine it. Pretty much all of GW's FAQ documents are far too short, and will never be full enough for their fans. If they had refined the system into one where all rules share a unified concept, they wouldn't have to.
Even a refined system needs explaining, but the difference is one of confidence. If your system does its job, the rules are interpreted more smoothly, and people have more time to enjoy playing a game.
To Refine or Expand
Related to this is how one decides to expand or refine. In rules terms, you need to be able to decide when to add more, simplify, or to completely redefine. You also need to know when is the right time to apply either of those three (for an example of how not to do this, compare two editions of any GW game). Rules that are clunky need either to be simplified or redefined. You certainly shouldn't expand on such a concept if the original concept doesn't really work.
You could be easily led to the question of which is more important, and the answer is that they are all equally important. You should always refine and expand. You should never be afraid to add too much to a system, merely too little. People know what they want out of a game, so additional optional rules should always be welcome; the only issue is finding an appropriate place to introduce them. GW books such as Cityfight, Planetstrike, Apocalypse and the recent Storm of Magic are all very good examples of how to appropriately add more potential options to a game. GW most likely peaked with the Specialist Games website, and Fantasy's General's Compendium.
People are always looking to try new things and add more to their experience. In that situation refining becomes increasingly difficult. But ultimately if you know what requires refining, it isn't as difficult as it seems. It is the integrity of the fundamental core system, and the balance of individual factions that requires refining. Expansion beyond that will always attract the audience that wants it, and trust me, they will make such things work.
The biggest travesty to any Wargame is to take away expanded ideas, and an even bigger travesty is to not even refine what aught to be refined. If you want the best example of this, seek out your nearest Games Workshop. You'll find 3 particularly horrific examples.
